tv Happening Now FOX News August 8, 2017 10:00am-11:00am PDT
thing. facebook live, jason chaffetz in the house. we will pop up on the web in seconds, "happening now" now. >> melissa: a fox news alert from fox news global headquarters in new york, and unarmed iranian drone nearly colliding with the u.s. navy fighter jet over the persian gulf. >> jon: that drone coming within 100 feet of the f-18 super hornet as it was in a holding pattern. defense officials are now responding, calling the incident "unprofessional and dangerous." we will have more on this developing story, we are covering all the news happening now. two year since the u.s. fight against isis began. how much progress have we made? also, lawmakers may be on vacation now but can they avoid a government shutdown once i get
back to work? plus, taking steps to prevent concussions among young athletes. it's all happening now. we begin with this fox news alert, president trump getting ready to lead all round table on the opioid crisis in this country, about two hours from now. it comes out some of the new polls are shedding light on the president's job approval rating. hello and welcome to the second hour of "happening now," i'm jon scott. >> melissa: >> melissa: i melis. the president spending a week on a working vacation at his golf club in bedminster new jersey but he is not taking a break from twitter, announcing today's roundtable there, tweeting "i will be holding a major briefing on the opioid crisis, a major problem for our country, today at 3:00 p.m. in bedminster, n.j." "i think senator blumenthal should take a nice long vacation in vietnam, where he lied about
his service, so he can at least say he was there" that after the senator had spoken out about the russia investigation. >> the special counsel and the president of the united states are on a collision course. they are heading toward a constitutional confrontation that could lead to a crisis and it should be avoided. the best way to avoid it and maybe the only way is through legislation. to protect the integrity and independence of this special counsel. >> jon: all of this is a new cnn poll shows 38% of americans approve of the way mr. trump is handling the presidency. a cbs poll as his rate even lower at 36%.
bob, it is our young administration, you don't like to see approval numbers like that. >> no and i think the fall is going to be a very busy time with fiscal deadlines, raising the debt ceiling, possible government shutdown. august has to be a key month for president trump as well as his new chief of staff, general kelly who seems to instill some discipline in the system. you've got to make an appointment, they really needed that. he tweeted about senator blumenthal, i think he's got to focus more on the econom economy. and also talk about isis and have that message discipline. >> jon: when he goes after a sitting u.s. senator, albeit a democrat, you don't think that helps his brand? >> i don't. he's gone after him a lot befor
before, and blumenthal has been outspoken of his criticism withf the president. this is a challenge for general kelly, to get stuff done in washington, to get obamacare repealed and replaced, to get tax reform done, you have to have a lot of message discipline and i think that's what they got to focus on this fall. focus on the agenda and not blame the republicans, let congress, that's not going to help you in the midterm elections next year. >> jon: talking about message discipline, they still don't have a communications director, right? >> they have gone through several. i think they are going to have to have a strategy. the president himself has not been happy with the communication and the outlet, including anthony scaramucci. although he was only around for ten days. i think they've got to come with a messaging plan. that is how he won the
presidency, he had a great message, a slogan candidates would talk about and criticize which only help to the president get to the white house. i think they've got to put that in a governing type of perspective and talk about it. the more they talk about policy, the better for republicans in congress and the president himself. >> jon: speaking of slogans, does anyone in the trump white house remember the slogan of the clinton campaign when bill clinton was running for the presidency the first time back in 1991? the president i guess tries from time to time to talk about the success of the economy but it doesn't seem to be getting a lot of traction. >> you are right, he has talked about the economy but i think he can't do that enough. that is what people vote on, they are not going to be voting on russian investigations, they are going to be voting on bread-and-butter issues. i think they've got to come up
with a slogan for tax cuts or tax reform. you've got to have a slogan. you've got to go on the road, maybe do some oval office speeches, you have to have a messaging game plan, the economy is doing well but if we pass this bill, the economy is only going to get better. >> jon: when he blames congress for not getting rid of obamacare, this is a republican led congress, he is kind of piling on his own team. >> democrats like to see that. every midterm is a referendum on the presidency, look at recent midterms, whether it is 2010, 2014, president obama's party lost the house in 2010, lost the senate in 2014. it is a referendum on the president. you want to have more unity. he's only been in office for six or seven months and they lost that health care vote by one vote, that doesn't mean they can't go back and try to come up with some other solution but i
think the focus now is going to be on tax cuts, that is something republicans feel more unified on. >> jon: bob, thank you. >> melissa: are fox news alert for you now, this is a big one. u.s. intelligence officials reportedly finding that north korea has already produced a miniature nuclear warhead that can fit inside a missile. this report is coming from "the washington post" right now. the dell of emac development means that north korea is even closer to becoming a true nuclear power. the u.s. finding last month that kim jong-un controls up to 60 nuclear weapons and that north korea is getting closer to building a ballistic missile that could strike cities on the u.s. mainland. if this turns out to be true, north korea is a lot further along than researchers had once thought. we are going to bring you more on this as it becomes available.
this is a huge deal because even in just the last few hours, people have been saying what they are missing is that miniaturized warhead to go inside and now we are hearing this report they may have it. >> jon: you have to have a smaller weapon that is able to fit inside the nose cone. to be able to deliver it to. if they have in fact as "the washington post" is saying managed to successfully miniaturize a weapon, that is a game changer because it means that basically the united states is in potential danger and they don't necessarily even have to be all that accurate with a nuclear weapon that would be triggered in the atmosphere could trigger all kinds of catastrophic consequences for the united states, an electromagnetic pulse could wipe out power stations, computers,
the electrical grid and to say nothing of the nuclear pollution. this is something very ominous and a very much watching. >> melissa: meanwhile, nikki haley has been part of the group pushing very hard to do something about this at the u.n., the most recent vote that just want by adding sanctions, piling them onto north korea, it's supported surprisingly by both russia and china, there was some talk that they would not get involved. even as the group comes together, you have to wonder what can be done beyond it sanctions or to curb the appetite for a nuclear weapon of this regime that does not seem to operate rationally. >> jon: this has been kim jong-un's holy grail since he assumed the leadership of the country that his grandfather essentially founded some years ago, he has been looking for the ability to threaten the united states with a nuclear weapon because it becomes an asymmetric threat, a tiny
country like north korea, barely able to feed its own people would still have the ability to threaten the united states and perhaps extract some concessions from us as a result of its ability to deliver a nuclear weapon. that is why the u.s. has been so concerned and is so invested in end time and missile systems which to this point have a mixed record of success. >> melissa: i am going to bring in the director of japan studies from the american enterprise institute. is this the last piece to the nuclear puzzle for the north koreans? >> i think it is. i should mention i am at the hoover institution at stanford university. it is something that is you mentioned has been the holy grail, it is what they have been working towards. we've been getting signals for several years now that they were getting closer and closer, you will still have different groups within the intelligence
community disputing whether they actually have the ability to a miniaturize the warheads and make them into missiles, whether those warheads can survive reentry, the number and the like. the point is if you take the long view and look at it of the course of a decade or more, they have relentlessly been moving to this point. they are going to get there in the sense that allows them to actually begin thinking about how they would deploy these weapons and we have to accept that we are in a new situation. >> melissa: what cooperation do they you think they needed t this done? who also around the world help this come to fruition. >> it's a great question, there are multiple different types of help they received. you can't do a program like this without enormous amounts of money. whether it was china continuing to accept cool shipments or looking the underway and undermining sanctions, that help them get the money for this. we know they work with iran, the pakistani and others. there are multiple different
ways that the north koreans have been in a two-way street, they have also been looking to sell their missiles when they are able to perfect them, they've been getting nuclear support from other nations, the degree to which china has been supporting this program is still open to debate. we have to accept that we have completely failed and isolating them from many sources of support and that now we are at a point where the idea of nuclear radiation as was most recently asked for in the u.n. sanctions that were passed on saturday is really just a fantasy. >> melissa: this report is coming from "the washington post," it contradicts the information we had earlier today. a very big story as it stands, how credible do you think it is? >> at this point, all you can do is try to piece together all the different sources of information that you are getting. this is an extremely technical information, some of it is
depending on whether we can read the type of activity that is coming out of their nuclear weapons laboratory. we have to look at what they are doing with the missile, the fact is, no one will ever know the truth until one day they decide to do a demonstration shot. when there is a mushroom cloud coming from north korea's demonstration shot we will be able to put aside all the questions. you are still going to have those disputing that there are there or targeting these missiles, all of this is a continuum but i think we have to put aside the fantasy of nuclear is asian and start accepting that north korea is a nuclear weapons state. >> melissa: thank you for joining us, we appreciate it. >> jon: we will have more on this breaking and ominous story after a break.
>> jon: on fox news alerts, u.s. intelligence officials are reportedly finding that north korea already has produced a miniaturize nuclear warhead. small enough and light enough to fit inside missiles. >> melissa: let me pick that up for you. this report coming from "the washington post," a former press secretary for president george w. bush, a fox news contributor as well. thank you for reacting to this breaking news as we have it, what do you think? >> frankly i think there are only three options. acquiesce and hope you are defense system works and except north korea's nuclear power. two, use the military to take them out knowing all the great risk that brings to the united states and our allies. end of the third, you do everything possible economically and through espionage to help the regime collapse from within. if it collapses from within, you
have to hope there will be people who pick up leadership from there who don't want nuclear weapons and will abandon them. as has been the case with libya, south africa, there is a precedent for that. >> melissa: that did seem like such a dicey option. if you look at the chaos we have seen ensue in syria, afghanistan, iraq. all these places that have fallen into chaos and seem to have gotten worse, sort of like you are delaying the problem. there is a lot of risk there. >> after the soviet union fell, kazakhstan and ukraine had nuclear weapons and leadership of those decided they did not want nuclear weapons so they entered into a peaceful arrangement and no longer have them. i don't give up hope that that third scenario is the best scenario. if it's not it is either military incursion the the united states would have to lead or you acquiesce and accept the fact that north korea is a nuclear power that has the
ability like the soviet union did, we as americans prepared to accept that from north korea. >> melissa: the path you suggested is that tipping point, when do you decide that you have tried hard enough. it seems like they have picked up the final piece of the puzzle to inflict pain and war. >> when you look at what the united nations job is to fight proliferation, when you -- bipartisan approaches in the last three administrations to fight proliferation, none of this works. time and technology are not on
the side of the united states. terrorists and other rogue nations are able to acquire technology that previously they cut into overtime and that is where i look at missile defense, that we must develop to perfect ourselves against a worst-case scenario. >> melissa: how much at this point do you think we are able to protect ourselves? another big development they came out today, u.s. by saying north korea has loaded the antiship missiles on two platoons that they can go out on patrol with. >> here is the calculation of you are north korea. if you ever use one of those nuclear weapons on an american city, you know the united states would have a massive response and everything in north korea would be obliterated in the american people with demand suc such. there is presumed rationality, we used to call it mutually assured destruction. in this case it would be one way destruction.
but we don't know with north korea is how rational they are. that is why they are different from china or the soviet union, now russia. >> melissa: that is the big question, it doesn't seem like it's a regime ruled by one person who does not appear to be terribly rational. that brings you back to the first question, if we are trying to negotiate with him in some way or just squeeze him through economic sanctions, he needs to starve his people so what are the hopes that any sanction from outside would really work if he is willing to completely start of his own population and keep whatever money is available for his weapons. >> he is not the only person in north korea, as we saw with the soviet union. they couldn't keep up with the western development, they were a bankrupt nation and took everything out on their people that they could and collapsed. there is precedent for their regimes falling from within. you just never know when you are going to get that last string that you pull out that makes
them fall apart. you don't know, it happens all of a sudden and people are shocked to see it happen. it is a weak state internally, it has a powerful leader who is propped up as a result of tradition and family dynasty but that doesn't mean there aren't other people out there who see a different way in north korea, they're very well may be in you just don't know what they want to have happen. >> melissa: you remember president obama warned president trump on the way out of office that this was the most urgent issue facing him, do you think he had any sense that it was going to bubble over this quickly? >> we get to the intelligence about the miniaturization of a nuclear weapon, this is all guesswork from our intelligence agencies, they don't know what north korea has. they do know the trajectory north korea is on and that's what president obama knew and i suspect that is what president obama warned president trump about, north korea is on the threshold of getting it and whether that means they get it in august 2017
or december or june of 2018, it is not much different. >> melissa: thank you for joining us on this breaking story, we appreciate it. >> thank you. >> jon: once again the headline coming out of "the washington post" ," defense intelligence agency researchers have concluded that north korea has managed to miniaturize one of its nuclear weapons, perhaps more, making them small enough and light enough that they could fit on the intercontinental ballistic missile which north korea has proven that it now possesses. joining us now, senior research scholar at columbia university and a former cia senior north korea analyst. you were just on the korean peninsula, does it surprise you this news out of "the washington post" and the defense intelligence agency? >> it does not surprise me, we always suspected they might have an ability to put a nuclear
warhead that could reach japan and korea. it was a matter of time. they personally told me they are very close to perfecting their nuclear arsenal and that they are never, ever going to give up. they are never going to negotiate over nuclear weapons. this was a matter of time and i was expecting this, maybe not today but i was expecting this at some point. >> jon: if you say they are never going to give up nuclear weapons, does that mean sanctions hold no possibility of effectiveness? >> i think given limited option options, we should still respond with sanctions, there are three options. the first option is sanctions, and then if it doesn't work, we have deterrents and containments and the second option is the
military option, the third option is trying to bring about change in the north. we have to do the first and third option combined, we don't have a lot of choice. we press forward with pressure, basically moving towards deterrents while still trying to bring about change in north korea. the north korean people can bring about different, military option is unthinkable. >> jon: you know better than i, the north korean people have been so indoctrinated into the way of living under kim jong-un, it is hard to imagine there is anybody there capable of critical thought needed to overthrow the dictator and subscribe to build some kind of new political system. >> as you know, ideological indoctrination, is how they have kept the regime going.
but that is changing, more information is going into north korea. part of our strategy has been information warfare, we are putting a lot of information into north korea. should they change their course, there could be a life outside of north korea. we need a concentrated information warfare strategy targeted at both the elites in the public. >> jon: you would advocate any course of action that does not involve military action, perhaps even preemptive military action against north korea? >> i am not for military options, even without nuclear weapons, let's face it, north korea is a nuclear power. they can strike japan and korea at minimum. they have over 10,000 auxiliary pieces, we have never mind 40 million people, we have
600,000 american lives living in south korea. we have american soldiers living in south korea, never mind in japan and other places. military option is entirely risky and it is unthinkable from my perspective. >> melissa: let me just jump in and ask you the last question because you do know so much about the regime and the region, does anyone have any idea if the regime were to be toppled, what is next? who was the next most powerful group, do we have any idea? >> that is very hard because he's been very busy getting rid of anybody who could replace hi him. we don't have a somebody. i do think there are still merits, if he were to go. the whole country has been founded on the dynasty. there are some values, that
family has to go. i don't think anything would change in north korea as long as kim jong-un is in power. >> melissa: absolutely. thank you for joining us, we appreciate it. >> jon: let's bring in the chairman of the conservative partnership institute, the former senator from south carolina, ominous news out of "the washington post," the defense intelligence agency has concluded that north korea has managed to miniaturize a nuclear weapon, how does that change the thinking of washington? >> it changes a lot, it represents a trail of broken political promises and bad intelligence, this is a multibillion dollar program that north korea has been involved with, they clearly have customers likely ran and others, we don't know where these missiles could end up. the assumption that they can't
fire at us because we could fire back is probably not a good assumption. what we need to do is we clearly need to rethink our relationship with china. north korea could not survive without support from china, china holds the key here yet we continue to have normal relationship, trade relations with china, we need to bear down with them otherwise north korea will not change. we need to do everything we can to make sure these missiles are not sold and shipped around the world. the most important thing i think we need to do right now is get really busy expediting our missile defense system that should have been completed decades ago but the only way to render these missiles useless is to be able to shoot them down. we need to make sure this is funded and that there is political support, hopefully bipartisan political support or a missile defense system, not only for ourselves but our allies in south korea and japan.
>> jon: the japanese have concluded the same thing, that miniaturization of a nuclear warhead has been successfully concluded in north korea. our defense intelligence agency says the same thing, do you think, talking about bipartisan questions here, do you think there will be argument in official washington about the danger this poses and about whether or not they have successfully achieve this goal? >> i think we know they have achieved the goal, it may be december, it may be a few months later, we know they are there. the question is, what are we going to do about it, are we going to continue to act like this strategy of mutually assured destruction will actually work in a world where we are dealing with really crazy people, we cannot rely on their fear of being destroyed. what we need to rely on is our ability to render these missiles
useless with the ability to shoot them down. and again, i believe we need to work with china and do everything we can to advance our missile defense system. >> jon: as you know that is an expensive proposition, the appetite in congress to find a more aggressive antimissile system. >> the alternatives are much more expensive. i hope congress can come together on this one and keep this program moving along because this is pretty much been stalled for ten, 20 years. we've got the basic technology to make it happen. >> jon: in terms of leaning on china, you mention china is the key here. would you essentially punish china for the support has given the regime? >> i don't know what the course is there, clearly our trade with china has enriched them and allowed them to build their own military and they are clearly supporting north korea, i don't want to trade more with china
but we need to be serious with them that they are endangering us and the whole world by their support of north korea. this has gotten way out of control and china is clearly an accomplice to this. we need to be much more serious about how we deal with china. >> melissa: if i can jump in and ask a question here. the gas that came before you advocated the idea of trying to pressure the regime until it was toppled. talking about different places that that has worked around the world. it does seem like it is a tough strategy because at some point you have to decide it is not working and take other action. how realistic do you think a strategy like that is at this moment? >> it would be very realistic if china was cooperated and we were talking about how to replace the regime. the unification of korea is what would be next in line and there are a lot of folks in south korea that would like to see that happen.
it would be very difficult and expensive but better than trying to replace one bad regime with another. there are some options but again, china is the key. the commitment of americans to be tough and make sure we can defend any missile strike on ourselves as well as our allies would again make the marketability of these north korean missiles, the sale price would be much lower. >> jon: h.r. mcmaster, the president's national security advisor has said that a nuclear arms north korea would be intolerable to this president. it appears that they have all the goods. we know they have the icbms, they have miniaturize the warheads to make it possible. having said it is intolerable, what does the president do, what does a national security advisor say now? >> the last three presidents have said it was intolerable, both political parties have set
it but yet we are here at the brink now, frankly, i think it is too late to just be -- the political speak we have, we've got to get serious. this program is very expensive that north korea has been a part of and we have to get at the root causes and the financing of this and that is going to take a little more open debate than we are having right now. >> jon: just stepping back and thinking about the nuclear blackmail that might be underway here. you have an impoverished country, cannot feed their own people, barely has electricity and yet they have the world's dominant superpower, with some 6,000 nuclear warheads in our arsenal, they seem to have us cowed to a certain point or at least worried about what they are going to do.
>> it's an intolerable situation with a very unstable leader. some of the folks that they have been working with on this, including iran. it suggests we need to certainly rethink the iran agreement and other things we have done it there. we've started a number of things that have led to this. the fact that we've allowed iran to move ahead with the nuclear program and their association with north korea, suggests that we have not handled this well as a country. we need to catch up really fast. >> jon: you have been it's a very high-level meetings in your time in washington and your time as a senator especially. if you are in the cabinet room advising the president today, what would you tell him? >> missile defense first, china relations certainly right there at the top as well. those two things have got to move ahead very quickly. >> melissa: thank you so much, we are going to turn to admiral
robert admiral robert, he is a former fleet commander. have you heard the news of the day no doubt, let me ask you first off, can we defend against this weapon? >> we would i would say we have a limited defense capabilities against this weapon, depending on how it is delivered. i certainly agree with the senator, we need to invest heavily and quickly in upgrading our capabilities of missile defense. we have gone too slowly in that regard and the abounds that have been existing for the last four or so years have got to be lifted, congress has got to get responsible in this regard, there's got to be significant investment and missile defense. having said that, we will never have 100% reliability and
shooting a missile down once it is fired. there will always be that threat and this is a very serious situation we find ourselves in now. >> melissa: what you are saying is a lot more dire than i think a lot of us have heard before this. you are saying we have limited capability at this point to shoot it down, do you believe it could reach the american mainland? >> it depends on the delivery, if it is fired from north korea, the intercontinental ballistic missile, we have some good capability, it is all about the areas where we do have capability against such a missile. >> melissa: what would be some of the other options, if they were firing it from the mainline, that's how you started that, what are other scenarios we would be on the lookout for? >> the best defense is to take
them out before they are fired. that is by far the most reliable defense we can have for our country. having said that, i do believe we have got to continue to work harder with china, get china involved. and try to bring the regime down to either sanity or to get them out of there. >> melissa: how do you do that, how do you take out those weapons before they are fired? >> you've got to fire at them before they fire themselves. we have the location of many of them. i don't want to pretend we should be talking about what number that is, but we do have surveillance systems and we do have intelligence systems that would give us a good indication of where these things are located. >> how reliable do you think that is? >> it is not 100% by any stretch
but if you can destroy these missiles before they are fired, you have a much better chance of then taking on any that you missed. >> melissa: obviously i am not a military person but laying out the logical scenario, if you are able to take out all of them but two, we would . >> we would certainly be prepared to intercept them. we would be prepared for that capability and for the downturn trajectory. >> melissa: what do you think, other possibilities people have raised is trying to topple the regime, whether that means squeezing them financially, is there a military option to toppling the regime, is that easier or more dangerous than the other options we have talked about? >> i say it is equally dangerous. again, those steps would be much
more readily achievable, we can't forget the holocaust of the korean peninsula is going to affect china in a big way. they have a vested interest in making sure this doesn't happen as well. i would suggest the discussions with china are going to get much more reasonable and i would hope productive. >> melissa: thank you so much for joining us, we appreciate your time. >> you're welcome. >> jon: an ominous headline out of "the washington post," the newspaper reporting a confidential assessment by the defense intelligence agency, saying north korea has already developed a miniaturized nuclear weapon that can fit on top of an icbm and we know they launched icbm's twice last month capable
of reaching the united states, alaska at the very least, perhaps the continental united states. let's get more reaction from our man at the pentagon. >> until today, u.s. officials told me there were three things north korea still needed to demonstrate before launching a nuclear tipped icbm that could strike the united states and that is successfully demonstrate the ability to hit a target, successfully demonstrate the ability to have some kind of reentry vehicle, successfully go into space and successfully come back down to earth and miniaturize a nuclear warhead and place it on top of a missile and the washington "the washin" reported today that they have taken that step. officials are not commenting on that report but it is certainly very ominous. >> jon: the report apparently was concluded last month, "the washington post" just getting it into print now, are you hearing people at the
pentagon talking about this at all, this comes from the defense intelligence agency, sometimes they don't always agree with the pentagon's own intelligence assessments. >> that is correct. the dia is not located at the pentagon, they are across the river. nobody is shooting down this report but they are taking it very seriously, they are not commenting right now. it is worth noting that the trump defense budget actually cuts missile defense, so while they are planning for 44 ground based interceptors by the end of the year, members of congress and the chairman of the house armed services committee want to increase missile defense as well as senator john mccain. of course, with all the focus on missile defense, it is worth talking about the pentagon's missile offense. the united states has over 400 intercontinental ballistic missiles of its own located on bases across three states, in montana, south dakota and wyoming.
these missiles are in silos, the crews are on alert 24/7 to launch a strike or a retaliatory strike should north korea or any other nation launch a nuclear strike against united states. there are also ballistic missile submarines, the navy has over a dozen ohio class ballistic missile submarines. normally there are always a bunch on deployment. each one of the missiles carries up to ten independent warheads, theoretically one u.s. navy ballistic missile submarine can take out 240 cities. that is just one submarine and there are a bunch of these on deployment. the air force also has strategic bombers, which can be deployed anywhere around the world. you saw in january, toward the end of jet president obama's presidency, bombs were dropped on isis is a conventional conv.
the u.s. air force does have the ability to launch long-range bombers and reveal a number of times and conduct strategic strikes anywhere in the world. >> jon: obviously the u.s. has the power to obliterate north korea but one nuclear weapon headed in our direction would be a very terrible thing indeed. let's get back to work on the story, thank you. >> melissa: the director of defense studies and senior editor for the national interest established by president richard nixon, he is also a columnist for asia times. thank you for joining us, what is your reaction? >> let's not mince words here, the fact is today is the day that we need to understand that north korea is a full-fledged nuclear power, it has the capability at least according to this report, if it is accurate, to deliver a nuclear weapon to the united states. i heard lucas' report, he is an outstanding reporter, i know a
lot of people are going to say we have more time, they might not have developed a heat shiel shield, the fact is, the first nuclear explosion by the united states was in 1945. the first time we tested an icbm was in 1957. people know how to develop this technology, it is not rocket science. we can't be shocked anymore that the north koreans have these weapons, they have a very small economy, only one-third the size of ethiopia, yet they have achieved something that is remarkable but terrifying at the same time. we have to accept this for what it is and we have to respond, we have no choice. >> melissa: what is the response? >> i think the response is very clear. i had a piece on fox news in the last 24 hours, it is time to put pressure on china to enforce the sanctions. >> melissa: we have heard that so much and it feels like we have already done that and tried that and they are not terribly
interested in following up. the best thing they have done in a while is vote for sanctions and the u.n. but that is still a vote as opposed to actually following it up with action. >> i think the chinese are in a little bit different situation with president trump, he has made it very clear in his past statements during the campaign that he was going to crackdown on chinese trade practices, their actions in the south china sea, their tough stance in the east china sea over taiwan. if china does not back the sanctions up and actually put their money where their mouth is when it comes to north korea, there ally, they are going to face the wrath of this presiden president. >> melissa: how did you read the signals, this seems a lot more hopeful than the president had that dinner, he had the chinese president with him there, he had sent those tomahawk missiles to syria, commented on how good it was, he left and thought he had made all kinds of progress with china and since then we saw the coal
shipments, saw that when the rubber meets the road, china was still there financing north korea. didn't that make you feel like maybe they don't listen to or respect this president? >> you are absolutely right. i think initially what president trump tried to do is buddy up to the chinese president. he is a businessman, try to make his points during their now famous, and i think it is pretty clear at least up until right now the chinese have not followed the sanctions. the chinese have come to a fork in the road now. there will be tremendous pressure on beijing and specifically chinese president xi jinping that they need to bring back there ally and pull them back. if they don't president trump is going to take a much tougher line on all of these issues, the south china sea, taiwan or the three billion-dollar trade deficit that the china has with the united states, it is china's choice. >> melissa: what is it mean, pull them back. if they have a nuclear weapon
like this, what good is pulling them back? we know behind the scenes they are continuing to do what they did before. what decisive action does china need to do, do they need to be instrumental in toppling the regime? this is a regime that is completely cooperative with them, what does pulling them back mean? >> if they actually enforce the sanctions, that would take potentially 1 billion or even more dollars away from the ability develop advanced icbms, the ability to develop a hydrogen bomb. i heard a report on fox that they are 6-18 months away from a hydrogen bomb. if we can constrain the resources and restrained and resources going into north korea, we can at least stop them from where they are. if the chinese can bring north koreans to negotiating table there could be some sort of a bargain here. i think that is a tough thing to do but i think we have to try. >> jon: the post article
quotes the director of the national laboratory in the last known u.s. official to personally inspect north korea's nuclear facilities. he said it's dangerous to ascribe too much technology or too much power to the regime. he suspects that according to the article, north korea has 20-25 nuclear weapons and he says if you pretend they are stronger than they really are it only emboldens them. >> i wouldn't necessarily disagree with that but i think this is one of those situations where we have to have our eyes wide open to the threat. we've stuck our heads in the sand when it comes to north korea, that is democratic and republican administrations, by the way. if this report is true and they have 60 nuclear weapons, that takes military options off the table because quite frankly it would be nearly impossible to
get 60 nuclear weapons in where all of those are. i do think we have to understand the threat we face and we have to push through options that are smart with dealing with this. i think my former boss had great points in beefing up our missile defense strategy and putting a lot more money in that. we have ways we can deal with this, we are not going to be able to completely solve it but we do have good options in front of us. >> jon: i have spoken to fairly high-level defense people who have said that in war gamin war gaming, a north korean attack situation, any conventional attack against the north korean forces always ended in some kind of a nuclear war. the stakes here are awfully high. >> the stakes are through the roof. just to give you a scenario, it doesn't even have to be a war. let's suppose the north koreans want to respond to the sanctions and test another icbm. god forbid one of those crashes
into south korea, the south koreans i guarantee are going to respond in some sort of manner. in that respect, the north koreans are going to respond. they have 10,000 artillery troops pointed at south korea. this quickly could escalate into a war that nobody wants. we know through history, these are how war starts and that is why this is especially dangerous. >> melissa: we appreciate your insight on this breaking news, thank you. >> jon: the big story of the day, "the washington post" reporting of the defense intelligence agency has concluded that north korea is now able to miniaturize a nuclear warhead and put it on top of one of its icbms, which it has successfully demonstrated. obviously, a huge of diplomacy, live at the state department with the latest. >> as this happens, as we are learning this news, rex tillerson is in the region, he is in thailand today, also
malaysia coming off an international summit in the philippines just to address really very much this issue. he has been speaking with international counterparts as part of what the state department has been calling a pressure campaign to try to diplomatically and economically isolate north korea to try to force north korea to give up its nuclear weapons program, to surrender its icbm ballistic missile program. it was a large milestone this weekend when the united nations security council passed a resolution increasing sanctions. noteworthy because china and russia signed on to those increased sanctions, that is something the u.s. ambassador to the united nations has spoken about, why it is so important that china gets on board with efforts like this, china is north korea's most significant ally. 90% of north korea's trade is credited to china. the question now moving forward on this is whether china will follow through and actually implement the sanctions.
a senior state department official says the list of things that china could be doing is still much larger than the list of things china has done on this front to confront north korea. this is all part of what the secretary of state is doing in southeast asia right now, trying to get u.s. allies and adversaries to come on board and it really caught north korea off from the international finance system, from the world economy and get them to change behavior. officials are also saying that the case they are making to china is north korea is destabilizing the entire region and in the end, what china wants out of all of this is stability on the korean peninsula to ensure it can continue to grow economically and become more of a regional and world power. all of these things are coming together now, the secretary of state continues to travel the region, continues to tell different governments and its counterparts, if you have trade with north korea, diplomatic relations with north korea, it
is time you cut that out. he made the same case in thailand earlier today, that is a country where north korea has an embassy, a country the state department says has very lax visa rules, allowing north korean officials to go in and set up shell companies there, all of that to playing into that this diplomacy rex tillerson is conducting right now. >> jon: as ominous as this news is as concerned as we are, it is even more concerning for the immediate neighborhood, places like south korea, japan and the philippines, they must be absolutely apoplectic and i can only imagine that there is a serious effort underway between diplomats in those countries to come up with some resolution. >> absolutely and that is also part of the case the united states is making here. as north korea continues to develop its weapons programs and continues its missile programs, the case you can make to china here is that these other nations
in your backyard, south korea, japan, they start to seek their own their own weaponization to defend themselves, you've seen some changes in attitudes and the no regime in south korea when it comes to missile defense programs, that is some things the u.s. has been pushing hard for these countries to begin to give a larger defense posture on their own. in the end, with the u.s. seeks to stop here is this arms race in the region and certainly a case can be made to china that they don't want to see an arms race in their own backyard among their adversaries just to counter what north korea is doing. >> melissa: thank you. >> melissa: former chief of staff for senator mike lee and president of sutherland institute, former ohio state minority leader, thank you for joining us on this news of the hour, what do you think of the political applications of this? >> i think it really shows that this policy of appeasement does not work when it comes to the
international front, we have seen that in republican and democratic administrations, i think we're going to see that play out in the fall when it comes to funding, how do we make sure we are funded properly with all of these things and i think you rightly pushed back, will china really help enforce a lot of these resolutions? i think china from a political standpoint has enjoyed having the u.s. hyper focused on north korea. it's prevented the u.s. from focusing on china and what is going on there. now everything changes today. nothing like a nuclear warhead to sharpen your focus a little bit. i would look for secretary of state taylor rex tillerson to e and put pressure on china on that front. >> what may happen is a blame game by republicans on capitol hill, saying this is the legacy of president obama, i would caution the folks in washington, let's not play a blame game. the reality is, our national
security is paramount, whether you are a democrat or republican we are facing a significant threat and unlike the cold war and the balance of power theory we operated under during most of the 20th century, north korea is truly a rogue entity. they seem to not care about absolutely anything, so the american government, our diplomatic side as well as outward military forces and our congress really need to come together and identify. there aren't a lot of immediate solutions or we would have done them at this point. i think it is a good point to make that we do have to look towards the funding, not only for the traditional icbm sub but from missile defense as well. we have to have all options on the table. >> melissa: thank you so much. >> jon: joining us now on the phone, a senior fellow at the heritage foundation and a former assistant secretary to, does this support surprise you? >> no, we knew they were moving
in this direction, assuming the report is true, the intelligence committee has been talking about this for many years. we've seen the progress they have made. the administration has been taking steps beyond what happened last weekend at the united nations to deal with this. it doesn't mean we are going forward tomorrow but we certainly knew this day would probably come. now we know why they are so concerned over the last few months. >> jon: it's the irresistible object -- i am sorry, the unmovable object meeting the irresistible force. president trump said it would be unacceptable for north korea to possess nuclear weapons and the ability to launch them. north korea leader kim jong-un has said he will never give up his nation's nuclear
capabilities. something's got to give there, what is it? >> it is one of the things we need to be prepared, we need to have the policy that says any use of these weapons will lead to the elimination of the regime. we need to be clear about that. we need to be close with our allies and improve their capabilities. missile defense needs to be strengthened, this is an evolving technology, we need to be able to defend ourselves. we need as some others have talked about, we need to try to make it painful for north korea to move forward with this program, including current steve that makes it harder for that they need to develop an arsenal. >> jon: peter brookes now at
the heritage foundation. thank you. >> thank you, jon. >> jon: ominous news. let's hope it's not true. >> >> melissa: thank you so much for joining us. >> jon: continuing live fox news coverage on this breaking coverage with harris faulk necessary on america's news headquarters. ♪ >> harris: thanks a lot, jon. here is the fox news alert for this hour. north korea has reportedly produced a miniaturized nuclear war head that can fit inside its missiles. "the washington post is reporting u.s. intelligence officials admit it brings kim jong un one step closer to becoming a full-fledged nuclear power. this comes as rex tillerson is in asia pressing for more help in dealing with the rogue regime. meanwhile ambassador nikki haley praised russia and china at the u.n. for their help. >> i think that with china we basically said enough talk. we're done. and you have the ability to control 90% of their trade and you can't